Canceling a scheduled event at the very last minute simply because you don’t like the group that booked it doesn’t sound like a display of dignity. Nonetheless, protecting “dignity” was one of the reasons a Richmond, Virginia, restaurant cited when doing just that after learning that it would be serving a pro-life Christian organization that opposes same-sex “marriage.”
The Washington Examiner reports on the story, writing that the group, the Family Foundation, “had scheduled an event at the Metzger Bar and Butchery on Wednesday but had its reservation canceled by the restaurant less than two hours before the scheduled time. The organization found out that its reservation had been canceled after a restaurant employee looked up the organization, and the restaurant’s waitstaff refused to serve it.”
“The reservation was for an event with supporters to inform them further about the Family Foundation [FF], Cobb said,” the Examiner also informed. “A total of 15-20 people, consisting of the guests and some staff members, were meant to be in attendance.”
The restaurant later explained itself. “We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe and this was the driving force behind our decision,” read an Instagram post from the eatery, “a German-influenced restaurant in the Union Hill neighborhood whose kitchen is helmed by co-owner Brittanny Anderson, a veteran of TV cooking shows including ‘Top Chef’ and ‘Chopped,’” relates The Washington Post.
“Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community. All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment,” the Instagram post continued. “We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety.”
Of course, this just reflects the “safe space” mentality too many young Americans have absorbed on college campuses, with the quoted term merely a euphemism for a zone in which disliked beliefs are excluded. The restaurant’s “dignity, comfort and safety” line is similar; an honest explanation would be, “We dislike you and are intolerant of your views.”
Recognizing this reality, Cobb accused “progressives” of hypocrisy in a FF post and said they were attempting “to recreate an environment from the 1950s and early 60s, when people were denied food service due to their race.” Interestingly, this lament was largely echoed by an apparent “progressive” in the third-most-popular related comment at MSN.com.
“Thanks to SCOTUS, this is where America is headed,” he wrote. “Pretty soon, we’ll have to take personality tests just to enter a place of business to ensure our values line up with the store owners. Thanks Christian Nationalists! Ya’ll feeling the freedom, yet?” But are both Right and Left missing the point here?
First, the answer to the above question could be, “Yes, I am feeling the freedom: a business owners’ right to exercise freedom of association.” As to this, here’s a point rarely made.
A Japanese-descent young lady I once knew told me that when she entered a Korean restaurant one day, she was told, “We don’t want your kind in here.” Terrible, huh?
But here’s the bright side: She was spared a situation in which people who hated her were forced to serve her and quite likely might’ve contaminated her food in anger and/or ensured a bad experience. What is this obsession with compelling those who detest you to do business with you?
If someone despises you because of your race, sex, religion, or some other reason, wouldn’t you rather know and take your money elsewhere? Or do you relish the thought that something not on the menu (human DNA?) might be enhancing your dish?
Of course, that’s the practical aspect of the matter. What of the morality? Well, consider: No one would deny me the right to include in or exclude from my home whomever I please. Why should I lose this right simply because I decide to erect extra tables and sell food?
It’s still my private property, paid for with my own money and created by the sweat of my own brow.
Likewise, no one would force you to bake cakes for or take pictures of people with whom you didn’t want to consort. Why should this change just because you decide to bake cakes or take pictures for money? The principle is simple: your home, your oven, your camera — your choice.
In reality, if conservatives weren’t merely conservative — in the sense of conserving the status quo (the present version of which was created by liberals!) — they’d take issue with anti-discrimination laws. In fact, the late Professor Walter E. Williams wrote in 2003 that whether or not you did so was a test of “your commitment to freedom of association.” Citing a 1940s ordinance prohibiting interracial tennis games on public courts, he stated that while people today are aghast at such restrictions, wouldn’t “it be just as offensive were there a law requiring blacks and whites to play tennis together?”
A person only really believes in freedom of association if, Williams concluded, “he’s willing to permit others to associate in ways he deems grossly offensive.” Forced association is not free association.
Of course, though, don’t oppose anti-discrimination laws if your overriding concern is enriching lawyers. They’ll make a lot less money if we all stop suing ourselves into oblivion fighting over who’s a “privileged class” and who must serve whom and why.
